Ignoring for a moment the distinct possibility (as pointed out by others in this thread) that you never actually were in a hurricane while onboard a ship, I present to you the following list of atheists who were in foxholes (and still continued to be atheists):
Edmonde De Amicis, Sir Richard Francis Burton, Giuseppe Garibaldi, General Victoriano Huerta, Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll, The Marquis Marie Jean Paul Roch Yves Gilbert Marie De Layfayette, General Sir Charles James Napier, General Arthur Condorcet O’Connor, General Bernardo O’Higgins, Major-General Sir Henry Creswickm Bart Rawlinson, and Edward John Trelawny.
It is also important to remember that few atheists “profess” to being atheists. It’s not something most atheists consider important to bring up in conversation (unlike recently born-again Christians, who generally love to talk about how they found Jesus at the drop of a hat). Furthermore, in the middle of the century, an American who professed atheism was taking a chance of being ostracised by his peers.
I base my beliefs on my experience. What I have seen first hand and up close. They are held by more people than yours to be true.
I have scientific studies and documented fact to back up what I say.
These are just a small sample of that evidence and proof.
No one can judge another’s ignorance until they have completely eliminated their own. If you should be able to eliminate all of your own ignorance, you will be on the level of God.
As you relate, Atheist is a professed belief. It is not something that can be experienced like God can be experienced. I believe that atheists do change, at least most of them, when they are faced with their own mortality. This is shown in near death experiences over and over.
Many NDEers, were agnostic or atheist before their experience including myself. Strangely enough it was not fear had changed them, it was God’s love.
Not trying to change your belief, no need to, this is just what I have experienced in my path through life.
Yes, but I said: without inference. Without the logical inferences that are denying as a valid means to knowledge in the case of evolution.
None of the objects you cite have the least validity unless one can draw inferences from them. Indeed, without inference, there can be no evidence that the past existed at all. Human observation is not evidence of past events without inference: all it is is evidence of human memory, which is not the same thing as evidence of the past UNLESS you grant the use of logical inference.
We are not asked to assume any such thing: it is demonstrated wih exactly the same sorts of logical inferences from currently existing evidence that one uses to track events in the past, observed or not.
Patently ridiculous. I can well judge the degree of ignorance in my children, based on what I know and what they do not. I can see their grasp of knowledge improve and I can judge the manner and degree to which their ignorance diminishes. In fact, if the teachers of my children were unable to judge the ignorance of my children, I would demand that those teachers be replaced with competent teachers who could judge ignorance.
Similarly, I am able to compare the “knowledge” you have posted regarding the second world war and compare it to my knowledge and determine that your ignorance is greater, in that you have expressed some knowledge, but also have displayed errors of fact. Regarding your posts on evolution, you consistently display a level of ignorance comparable to any person who had never actually studied the evidence.
I make no judgment regarding your reported NDE or the philosophical conclusion you may have drawn from it. In that I would have more ignorance of your life than you would. However, you then go on (despite your claim that we should not or cannot judge the ignorance of others) and make bold claims regarding what atheists do or do not believe–in the face of testimony from atheists (among whom I am not numbered) that their experience contradicts your claims.
At this point, you have established that you are not merely ignorant of science and history, but that you are a hypocrite, insisting that no one else can determine another’s ignorance while proclaiming yourself able to determine the same for them.
Yes, very true. What do pledging allegiance to the flag and maintaning American ideals have in common? The Pledge is an attempt to instill patriotism into the minds of its citizens, but if one is patriotic one does not need to profess it on a daily basis.
(SimonX: No offense taken. The hijack has made this thread infinitely more interesting.)
It took me awhile, but I understand now what you are saying.
Everying requires inference, and all inference is suspect. Yes. that’s one way of looking at things. Socrates said “the only true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing.”
OK, if we say you are right and we can’t really “know” anything. Then why are they teaching evolution in school as if it were known. You have only proved my argument rather than refuted it.
Mostly what you say depends of your definition of ignorance. I use the word meaning to “ignore” or to deny known knowledge.
Your children are not ignorant because they are young and not of full knowledge of worldly things. People are not ignorant because they lack specialized knowledge.
Whether your “ignorance” is greater than my “ignorance” reminds me of the old, horary argument of: “my is dog bigger than your dog.”
Trying to return to reality – no one is in any position to judge the knowledge, intelligence, or worthiness of any other individual. To do so would require a complete knowledge of that individual, and only God is privy to that.
I do not now, nor have I ever proclaimed perfection, I will make mistakes as everyone does, therefore it is best for both of us to work on our own ignorance than trying to change others. The former is possible and the latter impossible.
lekatt: Just for sheer entertainment value, why don’t you start using the word “ignorance” the way the rest of the planet does? Ignoring something is what you specialize at, apparently. Ignorance is not ignoring something. It is a lack of knowledge, and in your case, a willfull lack.
Then, unless you’re embracing and flaunting your hypocrisy, you will stop interrupting other threads with your false claims regarding evolution and your erroneous claims about who is atheist and what they believe. Go work on your own ignorance.
ok I admit it I skipped most of the arguments here. IMHO the pledge should not be mandatory for children (most important), teens, or adults. Think about it, as an adult how would you really feel if you were required to say or sign the pledge every day before work? For more insight into loyalty pledges read Catch 22. Most children don’t know what they are saying and have no appreciation for the thoughts behind the pledge. I personally have never been able to say the part about “under god” because I don’t believe that “god” cares a hoot about any given nation on earth. Why would he/she/they/it like the US more than Spain, or Britain, or India, or Afganistan?
PS lekatt; Everything a scientist knows is theory. We observe the world and postulate. We accept nothing based on feelings, hope, or belief. That is the realm of religion not science. And as Jerry says, “not that there’s anything wrong with that”
The word play is yours. What is being proffessed is not a belief qua anything about external reality, but rather simply a description of oneself: that belief, that others have, is not in me. That is distinctly different from expressing a belief about a particular state of truth in the world.
I don’t know what “responsibility” you are talking about, but the fact is that if you lack a particular objective belief, you are not asserting any objective belief in expressing it.
No, I ve done the opposite. GIVEN that we are willing to accept inference as a “better-than-nothing” means to talk about things like the past: things that, without which, almost any discussion of truth would be meaningless, you cannot selectively deny the use of inference in one instance while embracing it in another. If you want to assert that you were on such and such ship at such and such time in the past, and present evidence that you think substantiates this, then you cannot deny that other evidence, such as that of evolution, is of an invalid form. Philosophically, it is of an identical form.
I think you are trying to change the reality of life, and make it conform to what you think it ought to be.
If you decide that God does not exist, then that is a decision. It is also a belief and carries certain ramifications with it. People who don’t believe in God, have different behaviours than those who do. For example, they don’t worship in church, pray, etc. It seems to me you are trying to argue that the direction North, is North for everyone, but you. I don’t think you will get many to accept that.
Now as for your stance on evolution and inference. If we take the other side of the coin and say it is essential, or a better-than-nothing
solution to truth. Then we must be fair and allow other theories of evolution, proved through inference, to be taught in school also. Like the one below or hundreds of others that would fit this description. You have again proved my belief that more than one theory of how man came about on earth should be taught in school. Either that or none at all. As of now, it is unfairly biased teaching, and our children are misled.